Right on. The government in Hungary are scandalous in their treatment of immigrants and their own Roma people. And to think, it was only 13 years ago we let them into the EU. When, in turn, people on their doorstep in trouble come knocking, the door is firmly slammed in their face.

Eastern European and Western European countries' past history and experience is very different from one another. And events that happened 600 years ago influence that world-view to this day.

The way an "enlightened" Frenchman or Italian might view Turkey is very, very different from how a Bulgarian (such as myself) or Serb would view them. As to who's more "correct" in their view, well - that's a whole different subject.

These are complex issues and calling Hungary a bunch of racist twats is exactly the same as what Hungarians are doing to "refugees", who, interestingly enough, are disproportionately young men, in good physical condition, running away from countries that are not Syria or otherwise in a state of war. Some of the photographs I've seen of the border crossing show a distinct and very noticeable lack of women and children. And that in itself is also a very interesting subject we could debate for hours.

> Some of the photographs I've seen of the border crossing

and you trust those photos?

The most popular set of photos used to spread this meme are scenes of a group of migrants arriving by train in Munich (not at a border crossing) that are exclusively young men; for reasons not entirely clear to me they were on a separate train from the women and children in the same group, who arrived the next day.

There's also pictures of groups of boat refugees that show a large imbalance, which is true of those using that mode of transport, who often leave women and children to follow on once they've found a place because of the extreme danger of the route (which, yes, might evidence some degree of non-progressive concept of gender roles, but that's not the issue being raised.)

What are you insinuating? Might be running from forced conscriptions. Or mass graves, remember Srebrenica.

Someone may say we(central and eastern Europeans) let your (western European I guess) companies in;) http://piketty.blog.lemonde.fr/2018/01/16/2018-the-year-of-e...

If it were pure xenophobia or "irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries" the Hungarians would be worried about the Austrians and Swedes as much. However for some strange reason they treat the religion of peace types differently.

I think the category "fear of outsiders" is certainly partially true, but also a somewhat oversimplification. Having said that, a healthy dose of "fear of outsiders" isn't necessarily a bad thing either. We are all xenophobic, the question is how xenophobic are we, or how xenophobic should we be?

> dismantling democracy

Isn't George Soros also 'dismantling democracy' by influencing elections in places he is not a citizen of?

Democracy without a Bill of Rights is simply dictatorship of the majority. That's why modern democracies have a Constitution and a justice system that is independent of the election system. You are technically right that if someone from outside tries to influence the result of some election that would be meddling with the democratic process but at the same time if that democratic process is considering getting the majority to vote against human rights of certain ethnic groups I don't think it deserves much defense to begin with.

In other words, democracy is a tool, not an end in itself.

>You are technically right that if someone from outside tries to influence the result of some election that would be meddling with the democratic process

No, he isn't. If someone from the outside is influencing the system to preserve key characteristics it has, they aren't subverting the process.

No one thinks foreign election observers sent to oversee contested elections are the heralds of the end of democracy; quite the opposite.

Election observers are specifically tasked with not influencing the result in a preferred direction; though the accusations that they are influencers is often made to deligitimize them and cause them to be seen as anti-democratic.

So the example is, depending on how you look at it, either irrelevant or diametrically opposed to the point you offer it to support.

Observing certainly influences the election if the non-observed state of the election would involve voter intimidation, ballot box stuffing, or any other corrupt practice.

Hence we can distinguish between interventions aimed at subverting the democratic process and interventions based upon reinforcing them.

Whether or not Soros' interventions are enabling democracy or subverting them is a separate debate. My statement is just to show that the premise that 'any' interference is anti-democratic is demonstrably false.

Found the shill.

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the HN guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html